Conservative Arguments Won't Stand

Yet another Judge takes it upon herself to overthrow the Constitution. According to the Baptist Press,

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled the law violates equal protection rights of homosexuals under Florida's constitution. In the 53-page ruling, Lederman also found the law banning homosexual adoptions "defeats a child's right to permanency as provided by federal and state law."

So on what basis does Cindy feel the right to do this, when "previous federal and state rulings upholding Florida's ban on adoptions by homosexuals..."?

Apparently She sees it as a new day to change the law through the courts.

Lederman found the constitutionality of the ban is now "again ripe for consideration" because of recent "developments in the fields of social science, psychology, human sexuality, social work and medicine, the existence of additional studies, the re-analysis and peer review of prior studies, the endorsements by the major psychological, psychiatry, child welfare and social work associations, and the now, consensus based on widely accepted results of respected studies by qualified experts."

Of course, recent developments demonstrate that abortion is clearly murder beyond any reasonable doubt. So do we see her defending children in this field? Of course not. She is a Leftists, and Liberalism comes first, not children that are being murdered.

Now here is the problem. She is right based upon the poor arguments provided by Conservatives. Please read Steve Chapman's editorial at Townhall.com and notice he provides the same argumentation Judge Cindy does. He writes,

Would orphaned and abandoned children be better off if every one of them could be raised by stable, loving, heterosexual couples? Possibly. But that's not an option. For many children, the alternative to having gay adoptive parents is having no parents at all.

And again,

As it happens, those dangers are mostly imaginary. According to evidence cited by the judge, gays are slightly more likely than heterosexuals to suffer psychiatric problems, engage in substance abuse and smoke, but so are lots of other groups that are allowed to adopt. The American Psychological Association says it finds no difference between the parenting of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

So based upon research, gays and lesbians are no more likely to harm the child than heterosexual couples. At this point I do not care about the legitimacy of these studies because when you look at the arguments put forth by the conservatives, you have to wonder what all the fuss is about. Notice how Conservatives argue. John Stemberger, an Orlando attorney who leads the Florida Family Policy Counsel is cited in the article.

Stemberger added, "The studies are clear that children always do better with a married mother and a father. There are an enormous number of married couples trying to adopt. Some are even going overseas to adopt, and these children can easily be placed in families with a mom and a dad."

So what is the moral imperative? Why is it so bad that kids should not be places in homosexual home? "Because kids do better" is the answer. Talk about subjectivity.

Conservatives are always complaining that moral standards are going "out the window". They argue against moral relativism. Yet what moral standards are appealed to in the Court room? As far as I can tell, none.

No one is willing to demonstrate that homosexuality is an evil. No one is able to appeal to natural moral law nor are they willing to appeal to God's revealed law. So why should Conservatives win? For now, their case simply rests upon the fact that Judges are violating the Law. However, that will only last till legislatures finally give in and abandon all rationale.